Daily Mail
British cardinal accused of “inappropriate acts” by four priests
As reported by The Observer, one of the priests alleges that he has needed counselling after an inappropriate relationship with O’Brien.
A second complainant said that he was 18-years-old when O’Brien made an inappropriate approach after night prayers.
A third said he was invited to ‘get to know’ O’Brien at the archbishop’s residence only to face ‘unwanted behaviour’ from O’Brien after late-night drinking.
The four are all from the diocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh.
A spokesman for the cardinal said that he contests the allegations.
The four are worried that their complaints may not be fully addressed if O’Brien casts his vote in the election of a new pope.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
How many decades did they sit on this before they complained? Sorry, I’m not buying it. The guy is two months from retirement. He has also attracted the wrath of gays and lefties for speaking out against SSM.
Blake on February 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM
Was about to comment about how hard it is to refute the testimony of four witnesses but agreed, this is very suspicious.
If he did it I hope he’s appropriately punished (and that he resigns), but I’m always catching myself being far too credulous regarding accusations of wrongdoing. Sheesh — you’d think I’d learn after all this time.
inviolet on February 24, 2013 at 4:40 PM
Why should he resign? He’s actually due to retire next month. The four making the complaints were all in their late 20s or older. Assuming arguendo it did happen, it was a pass that was or was not reciprocated. No one was a child or raped.
Blake on February 24, 2013 at 4:47 PM
Does this make any sense? No, it doesn’t. What they are really saying is that they don’t want him having a vote. Sounds like politics to me.
Blake on February 24, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Whoops! I see where one said he was 18. I looked up another article where it said they were all priests assigned to parishes.
Blake on February 24, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Well….all due respect to your usual cogent arguing, perhaps the attempted fornication by a cardinal directed at a subordinate? CEOs have lost their jobs for less…and those CEOs didn’t have as their primary job description helping people to get to heaven, and they also didn’t have this piece of advice to soberly ponder (yes, the priests weren’t children but the scandal factor still applies to others)…
inviolet on February 24, 2013 at 4:55 PM
s/b the *alleged* attempted fornication
inviolet on February 24, 2013 at 4:56 PM
So one man comes onto a younger man, and everyone goes crazy. Homophobia!
/still learning the ropes on what is politically correct and what is not
Paul-Cincy on February 24, 2013 at 5:05 PM
A month before retirement? In the private sector, even if found true, they would have no power to do anything and they would not waste any time investigating something that happened 30 years ago. I guess in the Church if found true, at most it would get a public or private censure.
Blake on February 24, 2013 at 5:08 PM
A high school friend of mine who graduated in 1981 decided he wanted to be a priest so he went to seminary school. He did not stay very long because within weeks of going there one of the priests tried to convince him that it would please God if he performed oral sex on him. Now keep in mind that this was in 1981, long before this boy buggering scandal became a world wide news story and my friend had absolutely no reason to lie about it.
OxyCon on February 24, 2013 at 5:17 PM
I see what you’re saying. I work for a Catholic church and in the Church, “retirement” doesn’t mean quite the same thing as in the secular world. A lot of the time it’s hard to tell the difference between a retired priest/bishop/cardinal and a nonretired one because both are in the public eye just as much, celebrating just as many Sunday Masses and other sacraments, giving their status and name just as much to raise money for charities, etc. IOW they’re supposed to continue spending their days serving the Church in any way their strengths allow. Our local bishop recently “retired” and he’s still doing loads of public appearances, celebrating confirmations just like the current bishop, etc.
Resignation by a cardinal and censure, whether public or private, even if a day before he were to retire, (properly IMO if he is guilty, which looks more doubtful the more times I read that article, but who knows) would take away that scandal factor, because he wouldn’t be allowed to do any of those things in “retirement.”
inviolet on February 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM
Perhaps at one time.
All we have are the announced accusations — we don’t see any physical evidence such as letters or e-mails or DNA. We shall see.
Here in LA, we Catholics will have Cardinal Mahoney at the Conclave. Given the content in the recently released letters, he really shouldn’t be there either — but he’s going.
unclesmrgol on February 24, 2013 at 7:14 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283200/Keith-O-Brien-Let-priests-wed-says-UKs-senior-Catholic-overturn-centuries-tradition.html
unclesmrgol on February 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM
Hey, you can go around grabbing women’s breast and all they would have is “announced accusations”…you have a great opportunity if you applied the law in you own way.
right2bright on February 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM